6.4 The Role of Caregivers

We have seen that young children’s emotions and actions are affected by many factors, including brain maturation, culture, and peers. Now we focus on another primary influence on young children: their caregivers.

All children need parents who care about them because, no matter what the parenting style, parental involvement plays an important role in the development of both social and cognitive competence (Parke & Buriel, 2006). As more and more children spend long hours during early childhood with other adults, alternate caregivers become pivotal as well.

Caregiving Styles

Although thousands of researchers have traced the effects of parenting on child development, the work of one person, more than 50 years ago, continues to be influential. In her original research, Diana Baumrind (1967, 1971) studied 100 preschool children, all from California and almost all middle-class European-Americans. (The cohort and cultural limitations of this sample were not obvious at the time.)

Baumrind found that parents differed on four important dimensions:

1. Expressions of warmth. Some parents are warm and affectionate; others, cold and critical.
2. Strategies for discipline. Parents vary in how they explain, criticize, persuade, and punish.
3. Communication. Some parents listen patiently; others demand silence.
4. Expectations for maturity. Parents vary in how much responsibility and self-control they expect.

Baumrind’s Four Styles of CaregivingOn the basis of the dimensions listed above, Baumrind identified four parenting styles (summarized in TABLE 6.1).

• Authoritarian parenting. The authoritarian parent’s word is law (e.g., my way or the highway) and not to be questioned. Misconduct brings strict punishment, usually physical. Authoritarian parents set down clear rules and hold high standards. They do not expect children to offer opinions; discussion about emotions is especially rare. (One adult from such a family said that “How do you feel?” had only two possible answers: “Fine” and “Tired.”) Authoritarian parents seem cold, rarely showing affection.
  

• Permissive parenting. Permissive parents (also called indulgent parents) make few demands, hiding any impatience they feel. Discipline is lax, partly because they have low expectations for maturity. Instead, permissive parents are highly nurturing and accepting, listening to whatever their offspring say, and supporting their decisions.
  
• Authoritative parenting. Authoritative parents set limits, but they are flexible. They encourage maturity, but they usually listen and forgive (not punish) if the child falls short. There is verbal give-and-take, taking the child’s interests and opinions into consideration. Authoritative parents consider themselves as kind but firm guides, not authorities (like authoritarian parents) and not friends (like permissive parents).
  
• Rejecting-neglecting parenting. Rejecting-neglecting parents are disengaged, neither demanding nor responsive. Neglectful parents are unaware of their children’s behaviour; they seem not to care. They have low expectations, and do not monitor or support their children. They may actively reject their children, or else entirely neglect their parenting responsibilities.
  

The following long-term effects of parenting styles have been reported in many nations (Baumrind, 2005; Baumrind et al., 2010; Chan & Koo, 2011; Huver et al., 2010; Rothrauff et al., 2009).

• Authoritarian parents raise children who become conscientious, obedient, and quiet but not especially happy. Such children tend to feel guilty or depressed, internalizing their frustrations and blaming themselves when things don’t go well. As adolescents, they sometimes rebel, leaving home before age 20.
• Permissive parents raise unhappy children who lack self-control, especially in the give-and-take of peer relationships. Inadequate emotional regulation makes them immature and impedes friendships, which is the main reason for their unhappiness. They tend to continue to live at home, still dependent, in early adulthood.
• Authoritative parents raise children who are successful, articulate, happy with themselves, and generous with others. These children are usually liked by teachers and peers, especially in cultures that value individual initiative (e.g., North America).
• Rejecting-neglecting parents raise children who are immature, sad, lonely, and at risk of injury and abuse.

Problems With Baumrind’s StylesBaumrmd’s classification is often criticized. Problems include the following:

• Her participants were not diverse in SES, ethnicity, or culture.
• She focused more on adult attitudes than on adult actions.
• She overlooked children’s temperament, which affects the adult’s parenting style.
• Her classifications did not capture the complexities of parenting; for example, she did not recognize that some “authoritarian” parents are also affectionate.
• Her classifications were mutually exclusive, but in reality parents use various “types” of parenting, depending on the situation at hand.
• She did not realize that some “permissive” parents provide extensive verbal guidance.

We now know that children’s temperament and the culture’s standards powerfully affect caregivers, as do the consequences of parenting style (Cipriano & Stifter, 2010).

Moving beyond Baumrind’s dimensions, University of Toronto researchers Maayan Davidov and Joan Grusec (2006) focused on two features of positive parenting—responsiveness to distress, and warmth—and the effects of these features on children’s socioemotional functioning. They found that both mothers’ and fathers’ responsiveness to their children’s distress was linked to their children’s negative affective regulation. Mothers’ responsiveness to distress, but not fathers’, was shown to also increase children’s empathy and prosocial responses. Maternal warmth was linked to children’s better regulation of positive affect, but paternal warmth was not. Another study of parenting at age 2 and children’s competence in kindergarten (including emotional regulation and friendships) found multiple developmental pathways, with the best outcomes dependent on both the child and the adult (Blandon et al., 2010).

Also focusing on the emotional dimensions of parenting, Janet Strayer and William Roberts (2004) found that Canadian children were more likely to be angrier with mothers and fathers who were less empathic and warm, and had more age-inappropriate maturity demands. Children’s anger was also linked to fathers who were more authoritarian and mothers who were more likely to use anxiety and guilt control.

Such studies suggest that certain aspects of parenting, like responsiveness to the child’s distress and who the parent is (e.g., mother, father), can make unique contributions to the child’s development.

Cultural Variations

The significance of context is particularly obvious when children of various ethnic groups are compared. It may be that certain alleles are more common in children of one group or another, and that affects their temperament. However, much more influential are the attitudes and actions of adult caregivers. As Kagicibasi (1996) argued, children from more interdependent cultures, where relationships and the group’s needs are placed ahead of individual needs, may interpret high parental control as normal, and not as rejecting or harsh.

Parental InfluenceNorth American parents of Chinese, Caribbean, or African heritage are often stricter, or more authoritarian, than those of European backgrounds, yet their children develop better than if the parents were easygoing (Chao, 2001; Parke & Buriel, 2006). Latino parents are sometimes thought to be too intrusive, other times too permissive—but their children seem to be happier than the children of North American parents who behave the same way (García & García, 2009; Ispa et al., 2004; Moreno, 1991). A three-way interaction seems to influence the outcome of any parenting style: the child’s temperament, the parent’s personality, and the social context.

In 1995, Chao examined Chinese-American and European-American mothers of children aged 2- to 5-years-old in terms of their child-rearing beliefs. She discovered that the way Chinese-American and European-American mothers defined independence in their children differed significantly. For Chinese-Americans, the idea of self-reliance and becoming a contributing member of society was appealing. European-American mothers, in contrast, defined independence as the child’s own growing sense of individuality, self-expression, and separateness from the parents in action and in thought (Chao, 1995). Ten years later, Chuang’s (2006) study of Chinese-Canadian mothers found that the two definitions were relevant, as these mothers defined independence as both self-reliance and separateness from the parents.

Pay Attention Children develop best with lots of love and attention. They shouldn’t have to ask for it!

© THE NEW YORKER COLLECTION 2001 PAT BYRNES FROM CARTOONBANK.COM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

In another study of 1477 instances in which Mexican-American mothers of 4-year-olds tried to get their children to do something they were not doing, most of the time the mothers simply uttered a command and the children complied (Livas-Dlott et al., 2010). This simple strategy, with the mother asserting authority and the children obeying without question, might be considered authoritarian. However, almost never did the mothers use physical punishment or even harsh threats when the children did not immediately do as they were told—which happened 14 percent of the time. For example,

Note that the mother’s first three efforts failed, and then a look accompanied by an inaccurate explanation (in that setting, no one could be hurt) succeeded. The researchers explained that these Mexican-American families do not fit any of Baumrind’s categories; respect for adult authority does not mean a hostile mother–child relationship. Instead, the relationship shows evident cariño (caring) (Livas-Dlott et al., 2010).

A study in Hong Kong found that almost all parents believed that young children need strong guidance, including physical punishment. But most classified themselves as authoritative, not authoritarian, because they listened to their children and adjusted their expectations when needed (Chan et al., 2009).

A multicultural study of Canadian parents used parent and teacher ratings of child behaviour to determine if there were cultural differences in terms of parenting and child behaviour. Using teacher ratings of student behaviour, parental harshness was positively related to child aggression in European-Canadian families but negatively related in South Asian-Canadian families. In contrast, when parent ratings of behaviour were used, parental harshness was positively related to children’s aggression for all ethnic groups, although the strength of the relationship varied across ethnic groups (Ho et al., 2008).

In general, multicultural and international research has found that particular discipline methods and family rules are less important than warmth, support, and concern. Children from every ethnic group and every country benefit if they believe that they are appreciated; children everywhere suffer if they feel rejected and unwanted (Gershoff et al., 2010; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002).

Given a multicultural and multicontextual perspective, developmentalists hesitate to recommend any particular parenting style (Dishion & Bullock, 2002; J. G. Miller, 2004). That does not mean that all families function equally well—far from it. Signs of trouble include a child’s anxiety, aggression, and inability to play with others. Ineffective, neglectful parents are one cause of such trouble, but not the only one. Another cause, child maltreatment, is discussed at the end of this chapter.

What About Teachers?When Baumrind did her original research, 2- to 5-year-olds were cared for, almost exclusively, by their parents. Now most young children have teachers and other caregivers who can likewise be authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful (Ertesvåg, 2011).

Although all four styles are possible for caregivers who watch only one child, almost no teacher is permissive or neglectful. They couldn’t be. Allowing a group of 2- to 5-year-olds to do whatever they want would result in chaos, conflict, and perhaps danger. Young children are not so adept at emotional regulation and impulse control that several of them can safely play together, unguided or unsupervised, for long.

However, teachers can be authoritarian, setting down the law with no exceptions, or authoritative, setting flexible guidelines. Teachers with more education tend to be authoritative, responding to each child, listening and encouraging language, and so on. This fosters more capable children, which is one reason why teacher education is a measure used to indicate the quality of educational programs (Barnett et al., 2010; Norris, 2010).

In general, young children learn more from authoritative teachers because the teachers are perceived as warmer and more loving. In fact, one study found that, compared with children who had authoritarian teachers, those children whose teachers were child-centred, non-controlling, and very supportive scored higher on school-readiness measures (Barbarin et al., 2010).